Talk:Secondary professions for a Ranger
Rewrite I think this whole page needs to be rewritten, and this time by some1 who actually knows what there talking about, and i removed the dervish part(what 6 year old kid wrote that??) Kurd 10:22, 14 January 2007 (CST) : Ok i corrected some stuff: :* The R/W runner part isnt correct as the energy cost of non-ranger-shout isnt reduced :* Removed the EoE bomb under the R/Mo section :* Corrected the paragon section :*Removed these example builds: :** Bunny Thumper , has been nerfen and has a unfavor template :** Melandru's Arrows Ranger|R/Me Melandru's Arrows Ranger, has been nerfen and has a :unfavor template :** Cripshot Ranger, has been nerfen and has a unfavor template :** Repeat Expertise Assassin, removed as it has a unfavor template, added Build:R/A_Burning_Arrow_Ganksman :We still need to fill the dervish section but overal i think its accurate now ---> Kurd 11:27, 14 January 2007 (CST) ---- Preliminary information: good or bad? I made a reasonably effective Scythe Matters|Ranger/Dervish during the Nightfall PVP preview, and the R/P Pack Hunter was a big favourite among the newly introduced builds. I'm against speculation in article-pages, but I don't think it'd hurt much in these cases, given that we already have some information to work with. --Black Ark 04:52, 18 August 2006 (CDT) :It might be good, but you'll have to add a { {c3} } tag to the page that warns people that some of the information may not apply when Nightfall is officially released. ::Best not do it. Who needs the info if you can't even create one yet? It would just mean that we need to do a lot of updating later. -- (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2006 (CDT) The R/P section ought to be partially rewritten to address the Expertise nerf. --Desme 04:22, 27 November 2006 (CST) Shouts/Chants In the R/P section it says that Expertise Lowers paragon's shouts and chants. This is not true as far as I know. Is this a mistake? Lionfire :It got changed, they used to work on all non-spells — Skuld 18:10, 4 January 2007 (CST) ::That wasn't my point. The point was that the R/P section of the article is wrong. Lionfire :::You could fix it if you know it to be wrong? :) — Skuld 19:00, 4 January 2007 (CST) ::::I wouldn't know what to do be delete it. That wouldn't be constructive would it... Lionfire ::::: Okay, I did it. Doesn't like much better. And I NEED to work on typos. Lionfire Clean-up By god, some of these notes are horrible! [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 19:31, 8 May 2007 (CDT) delete see Category talk:Profession combinations#why delete --Honorable Sarah image:Honorable_Icon.gif 22:38, 11 May 2007 (CDT) Elementalist How come you removed the section about R/E? Conjures are very good for adding extra damage onto Barrage, Kindle, and even regular shots. It deserves to be there --Gimmethegepgun 20:52, 16 September 2007 (CDT) Assassin Secondary Ranger/AssassinRangers get very little benefit from this profession combination. Are you kidding me?Just go play an AB to see the R/A with escape whirling defense and dagger skills.Wormtongue Gr 00:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC) :The entire PvXwiki community disagrees, mostly because assassins are able to use much better dagger chains than rangers. The e-management provided by expertise is actually overshadowed by critical strikes, and primary assassins have a free secondary. Toraen (Talk/ ' 10:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC) ::I've never understood why people make a R/A with a dagger chain. Lower damage, inferior energy management are traded for survivability (which could be attained by using Shroud of Distress, Critical Defences etc) Silver Sunlight (T/ ) 11:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC) :::Shroud of Distress is commonly held to be bugged- it often only works if you're under 50% when you cast it. 11:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC) ::::Lightning Reflexes and Whirling Defense zomg (T/ ) 11:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC) :::::I've never noticed it not working... Either way, most Assassin chains are "hit and run", prolonged survivability isn't all that important. Silver Sunlight (T/ ) 11:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Smite Ranger? Couldnt we add the smite ranger on here? 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC) :...what is that? (T/ ) 23:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC) ::Something about Smite being an attack skill if I recall correctly. 23:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC) :::Welcome to three years ago? (T/ ) 23:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC) ::::Well gosh, you think of something then. 23:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC) :::::Oh, maybe he means Stonesoul Strike and Holy Strike, which are reduced by expertise. 23:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::That's a horrible build. (T/ ) 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::: Dual shot with smiting prayers buffz? A ranger that farmz smites? A spelling nazi who smitez me for my bad spelling? Deviant Priest 03:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::::The only buff you could use is Judge's Insight, and that is a lot of energy/long cast time for a pretty meh effect (compared to Conjures etc.) (T/ ) 03:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::::: Then in my personal opinion IP address probably maybe meant this pvx build Deviant Priest 04:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::That makes a lot of sense, actually. Might want to list R/N farming builds too. 04:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::::::You mean mention there's some synergy between stone striker, ranger armor, and storm chaser? Or is that sarcasm I detect? (I can never tell on the enterweb) Deviant Priest 04:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Pure Was Mi Ling I don't see how that is any more relevant to Rangers than any other class. Besides, it conflicts with Antidote Signet and isn't affected by Expertise...and I don't think it would be useful on a split or spike. (T/ ) 01:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC) :I take it on Felix when I get CoF runs... but that's not actually playing GW. 03:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ::Meh. Saw it on observer several times. The only reason I think it's more relevant to Rangers is because they're basically the class with the best bar compression, so good support skills that might otherwise be overlooked can find a place on some Ranger bars. How does it conflict with Antidote Signet though? Maybe I don't know what you mean by "conflict." Obviously you wouldn't take both of them. On a slightly related note, the somewhat dismal energy management from Shell Shock + Body Shot isn't that terrible when you consider you're also getting cracked armor in there to assist with damage. 'Lazuli 06:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC) :::The only reason to take Pure Was over Antidote Signet would be to help out allies; when you're by yourself/splitting/running/soloing NPCs etc. it's obvious that Antidote Signet would be taken. I suppose you are right that a Ranger could get away with it more than most profession. But it seems like questionable advice outside of teh "high-end" PvP. :::Every profession can take Weaken Armor/Sundering Weapon to add domages, but it's a fairly small damage increase; large portion of Ranger's damage comes from armor-ignoring and degen anyway. There is marginally more synergy because of Body Shot, sure; but I think only the Warrior has a truly good reason to take Sundering Weapon, for Body Blow or Distracting Strike. :::Anyway that's just my opinions on how Ranger ought to be played, they are by no means the best or most correct, so feel free to add back in if you want. (T/ ) 07:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC) ::::Thanks for explaining your reasoning. Even though raw damage Rangers have surged to popularity in the past, Anet seems adamant on nerfing them, leading me to believe that degeneration is the way they intended Rangers to deal damage. I will leave the article as is. Lazuli 16:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC) :::::It was madness when they buffed Burning Arrow, since it was totally contrary to the prior nerf of Sloth Hunter's Shot for "doing too much damage". I'd say ANet has yet to make up its mind, really. (T/ ) 05:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC) several issues I'll adress the issues here, without an answer and a decent argumentation, I'll revert. And no, "I play a ranger" is not a decent argument. Amy Awien 18:01, May 29, 2011 (UTC) : I don't think using reverts as a threat is in line with the spirit of the no-re-revert rule... we'll soon have a revert war going on this way ('I revert your stuff and you can't put it back unless you ask me nicely') - GW-Kuku 07:57, May 30, 2011 (UTC) :: I didn't read that as a threat, because I know that if there is no answer or decent argumentation, the original point will stand (i.e. it becomes consensus) and the article will then be edited to reflect that consensus, which in this case means a revert. :: If you do a revert and don't argue your point, your revert will eventually be re-reverted. That is well within the spirit of GW:1RV, because it intends to prevent revert wars and promote discussion, and it applies only to issues that are unresolved — and one side not arguing tends to resolve issues rather decisively. --◄mendel► 08:29, May 30, 2011 (UTC) :: Addendum: This does not end in a revert war because anyone who re-reverts against established consensus breaks the 1RV policy and gets blocked. (That means you don't fight the anti-consensus revert by re-reverting it (i.e. a revert war), you fight it by getting an admin to warn or block that editor, and then reverting it.) --◄mendel► 08:32, May 30, 2011 (UTC) ::: There are not enough people around for a consensus; you might as well lock the page. Builds are all about playing style and personal preferences -> you need a large community to filter out good practices. GW-Kuku 10:43, May 30, 2011 (UTC) :::: Do you think we should remove all advice from the wiki? I don't think Amy'd agree to that. --◄mendel► 14:18, May 30, 2011 (UTC) :::::I think we should leave things as they are. I agree with Kuku though, I thought of it as a threat and hence thought her two reverts were breaking the rule due to this "threat". I'm glad that I wasn't the only one whom saw this. Amy should know this isn't "her" wiki and that Ips, even users have the right to edit the wiki and add what they think is useful. I'm tired of "If it's not a good argument, I'm removing it" bullcrap. 15:14, May 30, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Tip: calling other editor's comments "bullcrap" can get you blocked. --◄mendel► 15:27, May 30, 2011 (UTC) ::::::"If it's not a good argument, I'm removing it" -- now this can be read as meaning that bad arguments would be removed, and I don't think anyone said that. If there isn't a good argument for keeping advice, the advice should be removed - with the argument being on the talkpage (no removal) and the advice being on the article (or not). ::::::Editors do have the right to add what is useful, but if, in reasoned debate, it turns out not to be useful after all, other editors have the right to remove it. Actually, the way it works is that you're allowed to remove it first and then have the debate - that's why one revert is ok. ::::::I'm sure Amy doesn't think this is "her" wiki; if you disagree, Amy's talkpage is the place to address that. --◄mendel► 16:18, May 30, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Ariyen, you say 'we should leave things as they are', but you are the one persisting in wanting to keep the changes you recently made. ::::::Everyone has the privilege (it is not a right) to edit, that includes people who think some 'recommendations' or changes are not an improvement. This privilege to edit does not give you the right to prevent others from editing. ::::::Ariyen, I am the one who tried to take this edit-conflicts to the talkpage rather then discussing changes through edit-summaries. What alternatives would there be except reverting an editor who does not discuss conflicts on the article talkpage? Amy Awien 16:24, May 30, 2011 (UTC) ::::Kuku, 4 editors are discussion it, if they reach 'consensus' then there is consensus. You can not lock pages on a wiki, unless it's to protect against vandalism or with very controversial subjects. If articles become inaccurate they should probably be removed, at least from the main namespace. Amy Awien 16:24, May 30, 2011 (UTC) :::::With all respect, Amy, there is no discussion going on here; just some bickering between people with different visions and no empathy whatsoever. I know how locking works for wiki's; right now, you might as well lock the entire wiki :( GW-Kuku 08:44, May 31, 2011 (UTC) ::::::The discussion concerning the content of the article is just below this section and I think some of the points have been resolved. I am sorry if you experience some lack in shown empathy, but you don't see everything that is going on. Do youhave idea's on how to handle this? Amy Awien 10:44, May 31, 2011 (UTC) ::::::We'd have liked to redirect this wiki when guildwiki moved to guildwiki.org, and I would love to "lock it down" if we had consensus, but Wikia loves their traffic, so they said "there'll be a new community around soon, let's keep it open". That was half a year ago. You are that community. What do you think we should do? --◄mendel► 12:47, May 31, 2011 (UTC) :::::::I've expressed this in many forms, but I think I shall express it here clearly. I think we should delete what we don't need and don't want. However, I don't like wikia to step in and become "boss". I do think that we can turn some of this into fan fiction and use notes like what's on the traveler on those articles. If others try to recreate articles that are deleted, we can leave them a nice note as to why we're doing this and that we don't want/need to be a third documentive wiki. However as you said mendel, Wikia loves their traffic and that's the big harm that I see to making this wiki better. It's like being between a rock and a hard place. We don't have enough people at all here to update or document. There's more on those other wikis. I don't see what they see as a benefit to keep a dying and almost dead wiki, despite that very few edit. Most know about gww and the other now. More will find out and learn. I don't think there'd be that many and more than anything. Most would probably be vandals if we all ever leave. :::::::This is my thinking, a fan fic wiki is less likely of being vandalized and gives users the opportunity to have more fun without the need of having things "accurate" or be "up to date" or "Documentive". As you've mentioned on my user talk about fan fiction and it not being a Mary Sue piece, I think that we could have limitations / policies maybe... as to how far it can go and what to allow / not allow. Even maybe a rating setting for fan fiction. I know a typical wiki is suppose to be about documentation, but having seen some used more as a social network and this is the feeling or one of the new feelings I'm getting in wikia becoming. I think we could get this to work and be more of a hybrid between some documentive notes and fan fiction . To tie in both socializing / story telling and a bit of a documentaion with a twist. I think The traveler is basically my idea of how things can become. I have Alice on gww to thank for these ideas of her own fan fiction on Nick. :-) 19:35, May 31, 2011 (UTC) :::::Re: "if articles become inaccurate", I have created a community blog post for this issue. Please post your opinion there so we can come to a community decision on how to deal with that problem. --◄mendel► 13:49, May 31, 2011 (UTC) R/E Firestorm Firestorm is a poor choice for an ele, it's even worse for a ranger primary. Not even considering how (a) mobs scatter, making all other AoE damage from your team useless and (b) the damage is hopeless. (and btw, Ranger main for 6 years.) Amy Awien 17:42, May 29, 2011 (UTC) : If you were soloing a ranger/ele and got into an ambush where you had group of enemies at melee range (that probably shouldn't happen to an experienced player), how would you best get them to scatter? I am thinking it would be useful to have advice either on how to escape this situation, or how to avoid getting into it. (Then again, the place for that advice is probably in the Effective ranger guide, unless it's R/E-specific.) --◄mendel► 19:57, May 29, 2011 (UTC) ::Hardly no one uses R/E as a solo build. They use it with heroes or henchies and few times it has worked. I will state this most alliance members, guild members, and friends play ranger. I actually know more that play that profession that I do any other profession. It's kind of what got me into creating one and learning what I have so far. She's more effective with the ele skills in some situations than my own elemental. Her energy gets up faster as well being in the Expertise attributes. Plus it also depends on the runes, etc. used as to how effective things are. I would rather people try it, before they diss it. 20:08, May 29, 2011 (UTC) :::Expertise doesn't effect spells. If it did, everyone would be using Ranger as primary for any spellcasting job. Your Ranger's energy bar appears to be going up faster because the Energy bar is only 25~30 E, while that of an Ele has up to 100E in it. :::People can try anything, but that is not a reason to mention it here. :::I still don't see any good argument to recommend Fire Storm, "all my friend do it" is not a valid argument, I could claim all my friends run Monk primaries with swords, or assassins that run Minion Master builds. Amy Awien 22:26, May 29, 2011 (UTC) :::: It works well as a secondary, and because It is clear to me you haven't tried it (not only was I the one recommending it, another did here too). I'd rather you try it, before you knock it out of the ball park. No wonder you're running off people... Seriously, try it first as it doesn't matter on "exactly" how much energy you have as to how it's used. I can get up to about 41 energy on my ranger and do well with 10 energy cost, because of my attribute Expertise - I can use half of that energy about like some of the other skills on the other professions to use that skill. See, I knew that. Did you? 22:58, May 29, 2011 (UTC) ::::: Give me arguments as to why it works well, not just "it works well". It's still wasted skill slot - 30 second recharge and virtually no effect except for scattering any balled up mobs. Amy Awien 04:35, May 30, 2011 (UTC) :::::::Ask the ip, or try it. your assumption for it's wasted is invalid. I'm waiting until the ip participates as well . Notified them as you should have, of this particular section. Also, you missed the arguments I did give as to why. your "virtually no effect" is dissing it's aoe that it does. I also play Elemental as yet another main character. I know the differences between the two professions, energies, etc. and this is a decent secondary for a ranger. This skill helps to get the ranger out of a tight spot and adds to killing at range, one enemy at a time if one prefers, than to have a bunch ball up and give a disadvantage towards a ranger who may not use Barrage, etc. 06:04, May 30, 2011 (UTC) R/P Song of concentration is a poor substitute for trappers focus, or even whirling defence. Next problem, how are you going to get the adrenaline on a trapper? Well? Amy Awien 17:42, May 29, 2011 (UTC) :I'd say if you have to question, create a ranger and ask for some rp builds or check pvx and get them that has that skill in them. Try them out. Then decide if it's poor or not. R/P isn't done much, but from what I do know of from others that have done R/P - that skill is effective. 20:04, May 29, 2011 (UTC) ::On pvxwiki there isn't a single R/P with Song of Concentration. ::So, how are you going to build up the adrenaline required for Song of Concentration with a trapper? Amy Awien 22:32, May 29, 2011 (UTC) :::If you were in game, I'd tell you to ask the rangers that do R/P. That's what most do, because so many don't like uploading some builds to that place anymore due to all the buffs and nerfs. I can't blame them. So, if you can't find it on that site? doesn't mean it's not used. Ask in game around to many that are R/P. 23:01, May 29, 2011 (UTC) ::::It seems to me that Trapper's focus is better because it also increases the wilderness survival attribute, and it also doesn't require adrenaline, allowing it to be recast more easily. With 8 Expertise, you'd get 18 seconds of protection for 3 energy, and the casting time is the same 2 seconds for both. So with SoC you're protected for one trap, then you wait 3 seconds for it to cool down, cast it again (another 2 seconds) and set the next trap. With trapper's focus, you could be already setting your fifth trap by that time. So what advantage does SoC have over Trapper's focus? ::::"Ask in game" is not a valid support for your argument. --◄mendel► 23:41, May 29, 2011 (UTC) :::::Since neither of you might consider that one can be avaliable before the other or when either is avaliable. I'm not going to say much more, except ask others even in game. it's valid, because you'd get your answers from those that do r/p. 00:01, May 30, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Another argument that boils down to asking someone who's not available to verify. Well, I've asked Rangers, they don't use Song of Concentration. Amy Awien 04:42, May 30, 2011 (UTC) :::::::Remove it then. I only reworded. you had the issue. glad you resolved it. 05:54, May 30, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Trapper's Focus is an elite skill, which makes alternative recommendations valuable. Whirling defense is available in Kamadan, as is SoC, so I don't see your point, Ariyen. WD is a useful defense skill to bring; SoC is most effective when deployed as a (spike) support skill. Which is more useful "in the middle of battle"? To a trapper? --◄mendel► 08:59, May 30, 2011 (UTC) :::::::The last question sums up the basic problem: if you anticipate setting traps in the middle of battle, you're either doing something wrong, or pursuing a tactic that inexperienced players will not understand with just that hint. The general trapping guide suggests that you should set traps before battle in PvE; that you should not use traps in small-team PvP; and that in AB, using speed to help you stay ahead of the battle is preferable. --◄mendel► 09:13, May 30, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::It's not easy to "Trap" before battles in many areas, so that suggestion is poor. Also, inexperienced players may try out new things that they find works better than those that are "experienced". I know we all tend to learn from each other sometimes. I have back before I switched from trapper to just using the bow, set traps, etc. while others kept the enemy busy. 15:23, May 30, 2011 (UTC) R/A Re. these edits: The activation speed of self heals has nothing to do with expertise Amy Awien 18:01, May 29, 2011 (UTC) : Do the assassin self-heals get any benefit from Expertise at all? I haven't tested this, but reading the Expertise article, I'd say no. --◄mendel► 19:52, May 29, 2011 (UTC) :: It does, I and two at least four others have used the points in expertise to help. during a few runs up in Eye of the North. 20:01, May 29, 2011 (UTC) :::If they did it would be a bug, and widely known, until it got fixed. The only non-ranger selfheals that benefit from expertise are Dwayna's Touch and Healing Touch - and Dwayna's Touch is a lot more effective. Amy Awien 22:42, May 29, 2011 (UTC) ::::Hehe. I figured you'd claim it was a bug. The benefit is using half of the energy cost. So, it's not a bug and please play a ranger... 23:04, May 29, 2011 (UTC) :::::Both Guildwiki and gww:Expertise state that Expertise only affects attack skills, binding rituals, and touch skills . Unless you bring proof, I am going to assume you are wrong. --◄mendel► 23:29, May 29, 2011 (UTC) :The energy... >.< the regeneration of the energy? The cost? I can see why assasin heal might be preferred over that troll urgen, because of the energy cost, etc. 00:08, May 30, 2011 (UTC) ::The problem is not with preferring assassin skills, the problem is saying that this is due to expertise. --◄mendel► 00:22, May 30, 2011 (UTC) :::The problem is fixed. As I re read that whole thing and noticed how the section below went with the first that I think should be one * note. 01:55, May 30, 2011 (UTC) R/Mo Re. this edit: Rangers don't have anough energy for healing spells. And if you do want to play healer /Rt is a better choice (you know, expertise and spirits), or even /D. Leave healing to the spellcasters. Amy Awien 18:01, May 29, 2011 (UTC) :Many rangers do this, several during topk runs. they help heal some, while using their ranger skills as well to help with the extra enemies that the Assassins use. I have Several builds with monk heals. My question to you Amy. Do you play ranger to know if they "don't have enough energy"? Are you forgetting the Expertise, and that there are ranger skills used with the monk skills to help make the builds more effective? 19:59, May 29, 2011 (UTC) ::My answer to you, yes, I play ranger enough, my main is a ranger that I've played for six years. I know they don't have sufficient energy to do any effective healing. Rangers also do not get the healing benefit primary monks get from their divine favor. Party is better of with a caster for the healing, even just supportive healing, and a ranger doing ranger stuff, like launching arrows. ::Expertise does not reduce the cost of spells. Expertise only reduces the cost of Ranger skills, Attack skills, Touch skills and Binding Rituals. If you want to heal with your ranger, go /Rt for the Binding Rituals or /D for the touch heal in their arsenal. ::You could try really funky builds relying on Marksman Wager (under Asuran Scan) or Scavenger's Focus for energy, but that is hardly for the novice ranger. Amy Awien 22:14, May 29, 2011 (UTC) :::I see the strong differences. Do you play pvp wise or pve? I can ping you the builds with the mo as secondary and let you try them out. See how some use their builds. Far as I can see, many play their rangers differently, being negative about how some play is pretty poor. People have their own ways of playing their rangers. Grant it, may seem a little odd, but if they can get it to work. What's the big fuss? 23:07, May 29, 2011 (UTC) ::::People canfigure out theirs for themselves, we do not need to list every possible way to play a ranger. Just enough for new players to be able to make their choice, and more experienced players for general idea's. ::::I am not negative about someones play, but negative about your recommendations. You are misleading the reader when you say they can be effective healers with their primary Ranger. Amy Awien 04:53, May 30, 2011 (UTC) :::::Not misleading things that have happened even recently in parties. They are not better than a monk or rit as per your assumption, but decent. 05:58, May 30, 2011 (UTC) :::::Fine, since you two can't seem to notice... check out each page at the time it takes to use each skill Healing Breeze and Troll Unguent. Most use Healing Breeze more. Just go look and see why. Ariyen 22:13, May 31, 2011 (UTC) Death pact signet New people playing the ranger, may not know about the secondaries and what they can/can't do. I learned from the other rangers in my guild and alliance and other rangers that I've pugged with. New ones have asked, including me, on the ressurection skills, what each secondary offers, etc. So, that page? Think of it as an introduction to new players, not by removing facts aka, "-Death Pact Signet removing the obvious" as the new players may not know this, some whom use that ressurect doesn't know it, until it happens and then I've seen them change to another res skill, because they didn't know or think it'd be like it is. Thank you. 17:45, May 29, 2011 (UTC) (moved from User talk:Amy Awien, --◄mendel► 19:25, May 29, 2011 (UTC) )